Technologies

Agroforestry homegardens [Haiti]

Jardin de case

technologies_3227 - Haiti

Completeness: 90%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
land user:

Dieufort Laurore

Haiti

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Onsite and Offsite Benefits of SLM
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Swiss Red Cross (Swiss Red Cross) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Agroforestry is a way of incorporating agricultural land with trees, crops and / or livestock. The technology increases and diversifies production, generating social, economic and environmental benefits. In addition, planted around houses, trees offer protection against hurricanes.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Agroforestry systems in Haiti are traditional land use practices characterised by a multi-storey arrangement of tall native trees, fruit species at various heights and a range of perennial and annual crops below. In the region of Léogâne, agroforestry systems for subsistence are often found around houses as homegardens. In order to implement this technology, land users establish fruit trees (e.g. papaya, mango, pomelo, avocado, bread fruit, banana etc.) around their houses and then plant crops (e.g. yam) in the understorey of those trees.
They can also profit from conserved, mature trees, e.g. Samanea saman, a popular tree for agroforestry, as its characteristic umbrella shape protects the crops underneath from sun damage. Some of these homegardens are agro-silvo-pastoralist systems, since they include livestock production (e.g. poultry). The advantage of such systems is that the manure from livestock fertilizes the soil. There is no particular formation in which agroforestry systems are established, but the trees and crops are equally distributed. For maintenance, land users pull out weeds that compete with the crops, and replant annual crops after harvest.
Agroforestry-based homegardens provide a great diversity of products and offer a year-round harvest. Additionally, the trees promote a favourable micro-climate, which makes this technology resilient to dry periods. Besides food security, homegardens also have a positive impact on the environment. The vegetation cover reduces surface runoff and soil erosion. Moreover, the trees buffer wind gusts, hence they protect homes during tropical storms. The only limitation that can be attributed to this technology is that land users sometimes are troubled by the time required before receiving benefits from the first harvest from the trees.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Haiti

Region/ State/ Province:

Département de l'Ouest

Further specification of location:

Léogâne

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
Comments (type of project, etc.):

Before having all cleared, Haitians frequently cultivated using agroforestry systems.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • create beneficial economic impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):
  • Agro-silvopastoralism

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
  • Perennial (non-woody) cropping
  • Tree and shrub cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • root/tuber crops - sweet potatoes, yams, taro/cocoyam, other
Perennial (non-woody) cropping - Specify crops:
  • banana/plantain/abaca
Tree and shrub cropping - Specify crops:
  • avocado
  • cacao
  • coffee, shade grown
  • mango, mangosteen, guava
  • papaya
  • pomelo, breadfruit (artocarpus altilis)
Specify:

Harvest all year round

Is crop rotation practiced?

No

Grazing land

Grazing land

  • Cattle and goats are brought into the forest, tied to a tree or pole and fed with old banana trunks
Animal type:
  • cattle - dairy
  • cattle - non-dairy beef
  • goats
Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify:

The old banana trunks are given to the cattle, the excrements serve as fertilizer

Products and services:
  • meat
  • milk
Forest/ woodlands

Forest/ woodlands

  • (Semi-)natural forests/ woodlands
(Semi-)natural forests/ woodlands: Specify management type:
  • Selective felling
  • Non-wood forest use
Type of (semi-)natural forest:
  • subtropical humid forest natural vegetation
  • tropical rain forest natural vegetation
  • Samanea Saman
Are the trees specified above deciduous or evergreen?
  • deciduous
Products and services:
  • Fruits and nuts
  • Other forest products
  • Grazing/ browsing
  • Nature conservation/ protection
  • Protection against natural hazards

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
  • No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • agroforestry
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
management measures

management measures

  • M1: Change of land use type
Comments:

M1: planting trees where there weren't any, afforestation

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
  • Wm: mass movements/ landslides
  • Wo: offsite degradation effects
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bh: loss of habitats
  • Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
  • Bl: loss of soil life
water degradation

water degradation

  • Ha: aridification
  • Hs: change in quantity of surface water
  • Hg: change in groundwater/aquifer level
  • Hp: decline of surface water quality

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

In the Mornes in Léogâne, almost all houses have a small garden around them. In those gardens, one can find bananas, papayas, corn, sweet potatoes, cassava or spinach, chickens, goats, and more. These are small agro-silvo-pastoralist systems.

Author:

Ashley and Levine

Date:

1987

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Sometimes, the land users profit from existing large trees (e.g. Samanea Saman) to grow coffee, bananas, pomelo, yam etc. beneath them. An agroforestry system optimizes light, provides rich and abundant organic matter, and contributes greatly to maintaining the balance of the ecosystem.

Author:

Ethiquable

Date:

2013

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

0.5ha

other/ national currency (specify):

HTG

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

62.0

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

200 HTG

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Plant fruit / forest trees around the house, if there are already some, all the better. March / April (before big rainy season)
2. Plant crops between the trees March / April (before big rainy season)

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour Labour person-days 10.0 200.0 2000.0 100.0
Equipment Hoe pieces 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Equipment Pickaxe pieces 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Equipment Machete pieces 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Plant material Banana tree cutting 10.0 75.0 750.0 100.0
Plant material Cacao tree seeds milk powder tin 0.25 500.0 125.0 100.0
Plant material Coffee tree seeds milk powder tin 0.25 500.0 125.0 100.0
Plant material Coconut tree cutting 3.0 500.0 1500.0 100.0
Plant material Mango tree cutting 1.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Plant material Papaya tree cutting 3.0 30.0 90.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 4705.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 75.89
Comments:

Land users have the necessary tools (the 5 HTGs are budgeted as compensation cost for using their own tools).

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Weeding during the first 2 years First 2x a year and after 2 years only when necessary (about 1 once a year)
2. Harvest throughout the year
3. Cut banana trunks to give cattle throughout the year
4. Plant new fruit trees March / April, frequency depends on the plant
Comments:

During the first 2 years, it is necessary weed. Afterwards, when the trees have grown and there is enough shade, there will almost no weed.

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour Labour for maintenance person-days 50.0 200.0 10000.0 100.0
Equipment Machete pieces 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Equipment Hoe pieces 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Equipment Pickaxe pieces 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Plant material Cacao tree (economic lifetime +/- 20yrs) milk powder tin 0.5 500.0 250.0 100.0
Plant material Coffee tree (economic lifetime +/- 20yrs) milk powder tin 0.5 500.0 250.0 100.0
Plant material Papaya tree (economic lifetime +/- 4yrs) cutting 3.0 30.0 90.0 100.0
Plant material Coconut tree (economic lifetime +/- 15-60yrs) cutting 3.0 500.0 1500.0 100.0
Plant material Mango tree (economic lifetime >100yrs) cutting 1.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 12205.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 196.85
Comments:

Depending on the crops, there is no need to buy new ones: bananas, for instance, makes seedlings and a mango tree has an economic lifetime of more than 100 years.
Land users have the necessary tools (the 5 HTGs are budgeted as compensation cost for using their own tools).

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The price of seeds: If some seeds from the last harvest are kept, there is no need to buy (many) new ones the next season. The price of the seeds varies seasonally. At the time of the harvest prices are low, and in March (beginning of the planting season), they are higher. By planting crops that regrow every season or trees with a long economic life, money can be saved on the cost of seeds.

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

he windward sides (north-facing slopes) receive more rain than the leeward sides.

Léogâne has a tropical climate with a rainy season ranging from April to November (with two peaks in April-May and August-October) and a dry season from the end of November to March. The relative decrease in rainfall in June and July is called the "mid-summer drought". Due to climate change, the rainy season tends to start later than it used to.

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

Mean annual temperature: 25-27°C

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant
Comments and further specifications on topography:

Agroforestry gardens do not depend on topography.

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • high (>3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • high
Habitat diversity:
  • high

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • poor
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Age of land users:
  • youth
  • middle-aged
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Normally the women do the harvest. People of all ages help.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:
  • individual, not titled
Land use rights:
  • open access (unorganized)
Water use rights:
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
Comments:

If there are many houses together and the small-scale agroforestry systems form a medium-scale one (see cover picture), the drinking water is improved as well (moderately).

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased

crop quality

decreased
increased

risk of production failure

increased
decreased

product diversity

decreased
increased

production area

decreased
increased
Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased

drinking water quality

decreased
increased
Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased

farm income

decreased
increased

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased

water quality

decreased
increased

surface runoff

increased
decreased

evaporation

increased
decreased
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

plant diversity

decreased
increased
Climate and disaster risk reduction

flood impacts

increased
decreased

landslides/ debris flows

increased
decreased

drought impacts

increased
decreased

impacts of cyclones, rain storms

increased
decreased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season

reduced
increased

downstream flooding

increased
reduced

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

buffering/ filtering capacity

reduced
improved

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced

damage on public/ private infrastructure

increased
reduced

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
tropical storm well
local rainstorm well
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
drought well
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
landslide well
Comments:

Hard to say if seasonal precipitation increases or decreases. However, they vary more strongly than before.

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

positive

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Year-round production
Diversity of production
Increased income through cash crops (coffee, cocoa)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Conservation of biodiversity
Creation of microclimate
CO2 sequestration
Soil and water conservation
Protecting homes against strong winds
Protection of downstream areas from flooding and siltation

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
The first harvest is late. This is a big challenge because land users in the area live from hand to mouth. This can be overcome by combining it with Terra Preta raised garden beds (see documented technology in WOCAT database). Like this, the land users have something to eat while waiting for the trees to grow.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Difficult to convince land users because the benefits are rather in the long-term. It’s necessary to raise the land users’ awareness on all the benefits of this technology.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

Field visits with land users

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

Jean Carls Dessin

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/10/2017

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ashley, M.D. & Levine, D.S. (1987). Agroforestry outreach project: Main text. The final report of the University of Maine.

Available from where? Costs?

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaaz980.pdf

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ethicable (2013): Pourquoi nous soutenons l'agroforesterie.

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.ethiquable.coop/page-dactualites-mag/pourquoi-nous-soutenons-lagroforesterie

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Policy Brief: Productive and protective land management – reducing disastrous floods and saving springs in Haiti Author: Eichenberger J, Liniger HP, Year: 2020

URL:

https://www.wocat.net/en/projects-and-countries/projects/onsite-and-offsite-benefits-sustainable-land-management/haiti

Title/ description:

Video: Productive and protective land management – reducing disastrous floods and saving springs in Haiti Author: Liniger HP, Eichenberger J, Year: 2020

URL:

https://vimeo.com/429957516

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules